I don\u2019t expect most people to read this. It is exceedingly long with my original document clocking in at 29 pages and long lists of verses. I don\u2019t expect most people to interact with this trimmed down version; the Internet is fraught with shallowness. I do expect most people, especially Trichotomists, to ignore it, the verses, and the sources. But, this is my way of putting a stake in the ground and arguing why the position is wrong, where it\u2019s wrong, and when it matters. I do allow for a view of trichotomy that is holistic in its approach, but I\u2019ve rarely seen that nuanced a position at the lay level.<\/p>\n
To deal with man being three parts, I want to show first what Trichotomists say; then the Biblical Data and how the Scriptures, in both Testaments, respond to pointed questions; give some answers to the arguments and show how the Scripture corrects the incorrect teaching; and finally show a path forward for the trichotomist.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Trichotomy just means three-parts. It is the view that man\u2019s nature consists of three parts: body, soul, and spirit.<\/p>\n
Christianity played with trichotomy thanks to Greek Philosophy and Plato. Eventually remained part of the Eastern Church but it hasn\u2019t historically been part of the Western Church. \u00a0Neo-Platonic thought was re-introduced into the Church via Aquinas when influenced by the pseudo-Christian Plotinus. As Berkhof says, dichotomy (that man is body and soul, two parts) has been the historic and dominant position of the Church. On the other hand, he says, \u201cThe tri-partite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul.\u201d (Berkhoff, Systematic Theology)<\/p>\n
Eventually, some Protestant scholars came to hold a variation of the view but it was a mixed bag. Delitzsch, for example, seems to make it more a psychological division (like in my old Scofield bible) while Watchman Nee sounds downright Gnostic when he calls the body \u201cthe lowest\u201d aspect of man and the spirit the highest. (Nee, The Spiritual Man)<\/p>\n
Some of their arguments are as follows:<\/p>\n
First I want to highlight words that are used in the text with a caveat that I\u2019m not highlighting every conjugation. These are the words that Trichotomists say pertain to specific things (and not others) so I wanted to highlight the usage before answering the questions.<\/p>\n
LXX: (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) 273 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) 49 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9) 44 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) 9 = 383<\/p>\n
NT: (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) 192 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) 96 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9) 91 + (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) 18 = 397 (Strong\u2019s 4151: 383)<\/li>\n
LXX: (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd ) 301 + (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 ) 135 + (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2) 74 = 510<\/p>\n
NT: (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd ) 41 + (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 ) 12 + (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2) 15 = 68 (Strong\u2019s 5590: 104 Total)<\/li>\n
LXX (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) 74 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) 23 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) 22 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9) 12 + (\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) 3 = 134<\/p>\n
NT: (\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1) 70 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) 36\u00a0 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) 10 + (\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 ) 25 + (\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd ) 1 =142 (Strong\u2019s 4983: 142 Total)<\/li>\n
LXX: (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be) 49 + (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) 0 + (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76)17= 66<\/p>\n
NT:(\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be) 54 + (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) 1 + (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u1f76)39 = 94\u00a0 (Strong\u2019s 4561. Sarx: 149 Total)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
With so much data, we are forced to try to organize it.I\u2019ll approach this in the form of questions that deal directly with the Trichotomist position to see how it holds up. I will not include every single passage in the answering of the questions; I will simply include enough data to show where the preponderance of the evidence lies and how the text uses the words.<\/p>\n
Spirit and Soul are used interchangeably to show that the immaterial needs as much saving as the material aspect of man (Romans 3; John 3). Indeed, some of the passages cited speak of the entire person as \u201ca soul\u201d. So when the Psalmist says in Psalm 120:2 \u201cDeliver me, O Lord\u201d the original text reads \u201cDeliver my soul\u201d. So when the Psalmist goes on to speak of physical things that are injurious to him (his very being) he lists lying. Therefore, the spirit doesn\u2019t stand alone as dead but rather the entire man, as a living being, is demarcated as dead and in active rebellion against God (Ephesians 2:8,9). The idea that the spirit is the only part of man that needs to be brought alive by the new birth unto salvation is therefore erroneous according to Scripture. It\u2019s not just my spirit that is born again, but my entire self. My body catches up at the resurrection of the dead<\/a> (1 Corinthians 15).<\/p>\n2: What part of man can God interact with?<\/h3>\n
\n